CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
California News
Multimedia News
Money spotted for ShotSpotter technology
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Funding for a high-tech gun detection system was restored Friday morning and police academy classes were spared cancellation in a proposed city budget that is headed to the full Board of Supervisors for adoption.
After making a slew of cuts to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s proposed $6.5 billion budget Thursday, the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance Committee took a recess and made final funding decisions starting at 3 a.m. Friday.
Prior to recess, the committee voted 3-2 to kill $60,000 in funding for maintenance of the ShotSpotter system, which can pinpoint the location of shots fired, and recently was installed in the Bayview and Western Addition.
Newsom made a late-hour technical adjustment to the budget, not requiring a committee vote, that reinstated the funding for the devices.
“They tried to do away with ShotSpotters, but didn’t succeed. That’s a victory for programs using technology to solve crimes,” Newsom said.
Newsom also called it a victory for “uniformed officers” that members of the committee could not succeed in canceling any of the three scheduled police academy classes.
The committee voted 3-2 around 3 a.m. to postpone the classes by two months and delete three empty police captain positions, for a savings of $1.6 million.
The committee had more than $30 million worth of slashes it made to Newsom’s proposed budget and new revenue that it reallocated Friday morning. The money went to restore cuts made to health services and to fund other needs including additional gardeners for city parks, an increase in library hours and added staff for same-sex marriages.
The committee voted 4-1 to send it to the full board for approval.
Daly, the most outspoken critic of Newsom’s spending priorities, said he would not support a city budget until all cuts made to The City’s “safety net” are restored.
The chair of the committee, Supervisor Jake McGoldrick, praised the committee’s efforts.
“In the Health Department, more than $20 million we have been able to restore for health services,” he said.
Newsom submitted a balanced city budget for approval June 2 after closing a projected $338 million budget deficit.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take an initial vote on the budget, which can still be change, July 22 and a final vote July 29.
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:52 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008 re: "Crime cameras out of the picture?"
Report as inappropriate
10:42 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "City’s crime cameras shortsighted"
Report as inappropriate
10:05 AM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "Crime cameras out of the picture?"
Report as inappropriate
7:20 PM MST on Tue., Apr. 1, 2008
re: "City’s crime cameras shortsighted"
Report as inappropriate
5:40 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008
re: "City’s crime cameras shortsighted"
Report as inappropriate
10:21 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008
re: "City’s crime cameras shortsighted"
Report as inappropriate
9:23 AM MST on Fri., Mar. 21, 2008
re: "City’s crime cameras shortsighted"
Report as inappropriate
1:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"
Report as inappropriate
12:37 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 5, 2007
re: "Cities pursue cameras to stop crime, but results are mixed"
Report as inappropriate
12:34 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 20, 2007
re: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in S.F."
Report as inappropriate
Gretchen said:
Well, Duh. Why are we not surprised? A reduction of 22% of theft souds good to me. And these cameras which work well in all the other cities across the US are less effective here because they aren't monitored real time. So, rather than use them as they should be used, the Supes want to get rid of them - it figures. And, as for the cost, just eliminate a few supervisors and we'd have the money. SF does NOT need 11 supes. We need at most 7. And, the seven should be 4 from districts and 3 at large for the whole city. Who ever heard of a Board of supervisors or city council of 11 people for a city the size of SF? Dump some supervisors and use the money for things the city really needs like police academy classes, cameras, potholes, community justice center, etc. Keep the cameras, use them as intended, and get rid of our BOS - they are worthless.
6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
These cameras received a half-assed implementation, and thus have little effect on property crime and no effect on violent crime (homicides have gone up in SF since their introduction). The City got the cameras to appease the crime fighters. The cameras, however, are low quality and are not monitored live, to appease the civil libertarians. Thus, we have mostly useless cameras. This city loves its technology, but crime in San Francisco does not have a technological solution.
4 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
""Supervisors Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd opposed the cut for the surveillance cameras, while supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Chris Daly and Jake McGoldrick supported it."" Ok I live and work in D6 Daly's District and I want more cams. Since he doesn't support this initiative at the next D6 election I will vote against whomever he endorses as his replacement.
5 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
In the know said:
The use of cameras is not only dependent on location, but the people using the system, the quality and reliability of the device storing the images, as well as the maintenance of the system. This system has been in operation reliably or several years and it is maintained. The news that doesn't get out, because it's not contriversial, is that in fact the system DOES work. It's caught criminals in the act of non-violent and violent crimes, child abductions etc. and reduced the man-effort to find and prosecute criminals. So don't assume you know everything and that the ACLU knows what the heck they are talking about. As usual, they simply stand on their "no big brother" pedestal spouting out the mouth.. that's all they do! Light reduces crime.. sure does, but EVERYTHING else counts too. there is no one solution. So get with it people. It's not a waste of money unless the people controlling the system don't use it and the Pittsburg PD are steadfast in it's usefulness.
7 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jon said:
Without wishing to state the obvious, there may be a very good reason why the existing surveillance cameras have not performed as required. It would be unwise to simply assume that the system has been correctly designed, installed and operated, when this news report clearly suggests otherwise.
6 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Security cameras have not managed to STOP anything they've been installed for along the way. They didn't stop IRA bombings in London, they didn't stop the bombings at the Madrid train station. They haven't stopped robberies in convenience stores or gas stations. People still dash across national/international boarders and use execssive speed or run red lights on the roads, to name a few things. You name it and the cameras didn't STOP it. An argument might be made for their ability to LIMIT such actions.
6 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
logicbomb said:
So the police are against the cameras, and the civil liberty groups are against the cameras, and the criminals keep on committing crimes despite the cameras. Discontinuing this program, according to its status quo, is a no-brainer.
5 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Cameras can't catch criminals, cameras can't stop a crime in progress, and cameras don't deter criminals who know they will not be convicted, not earn a long sentence or not be eligible for the death penalty. The only solution to crime is to eliminate violent criminals swiftly and permanently, preferably via execution, but life sentences are okay provided they stay in prison until the die.
69 agree | 282 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Smile! said:
As of today, 213 people have been murdered in Baltimore. We have many cameras. Want safety? Get out of the city--whatever city you're in.
322 agree | 70 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
I find the headline for this article: "Crime cameras remain a dicey issue in SF" very intriguing. As a resident in the Mission district I attend monthly community meetings at the Police Dept and almost every meeting someone brings up a request for more cameras in more locations. The police department repeatedly tells us it can't be done due to the trial period, the cost, the process, yadda, yadda, yadda. So here's the question: If the public wants the cameras, and the only complaints about "civil liberties" are from a couple members of the Board of Supes, why is the use of cameras portrayed as a "dicey issue"? Isn't it more of a "Progressives prevent crime abatement by protecting civil liberties of crooks" issue? We read articles and comments about "police not doing their job" but we never seem to read articles about "Supes putting up roadblocks to police doing their job." Please tell McGoldrick that he doesn't speak for the citizens of the Mission district - we want cameras
162 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree